Posted on 09/27/2013 9:11:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The cover of the December 16, 2008 issue of The Advocate, the flagship gay publication, proclaimed boldly that, “Gay is the New Black,” stating that this is “The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle.” But whenever I mention this topic on my national talk radio show, asking my listeners if they believe it is fair to equate the black Civil Rights movement with today’s gay rights movement, I am flooded with African American callers who take strong exception to this comparison.
Some of them remind me of the public lynchings, of blacks being hosed down with fire hoses and attacked by police dogs, of families having to spend the night sleeping in their car because the hotels wouldn’t serve them, of water fountains marked “No coloreds” – not to mention the horrible history of African slavery in our nation.
They feel that gays and lesbians are hijacking their movement, even if they recognize that there has been real suffering experienced by many LGBT individuals. They simply feel that the comparison is totally unfair, also pointing out that the financial situation of the average gay or lesbian in America today is far better than the average situation of an African American during the days of segregation (or even today, for that matter).
Of course, there are quite a few compelling reasons why it is wrong to claim that “gay is the new black” (for a relevant article, click here), but during a recent TV interview, I made the comment that “during the days of segregation, we didn’t have people like Ellen DeGeneres who were national celebrities who were black and just loved by the whole nation.”
For this, I was mocked by RightWingWatch.org (always a good sign) and ridiculed by the ironically named gay activist website TruthWinsOut.org (always a badge of honor). Both sites pointed to people like Jackie Robinson, Althea Gibson, Sidney Poitier, Dorothy Dandridge, Harry Belafonte, Bo Diddley, Fats Domino, Chuck Berry, and Langston Hughes, none of whom, in my opinion, could be compared with someone like Ellen DeGeneres in terms of her platform and popularity.
And did any of these black celebrities have an interracial wedding of such prominence that it was celebrated on the front pages of our national magazines (as Ellen’s lesbian wedding was)? (To be clear: I’m not comparing interracial marriage with same-sex “marriage.” I’m simply illustrating a point.)
And when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in the big leagues, did he receive a congratulatory call from the president, as did Jason Collins when he came out as the first gay NBA player?
Even the conservative gay journalist Charles Winecoff once wrote, “Newsflash: blacks in America didn’t start out as hip-hop fashion designers; they were slaves. There’s a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same sex partner of your choice – and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or use a rest room because you don’t have the right skin color.”
But let’s test my theory a little further, since I simply used Ellen as one example of a larger phenomenon, and I do understand why these websites chose to challenge me on that point.
So, I personally invite Evan Hurst, who penned the aforementioned article on TruthWinsOut, along with Kyle Mantyla, who wrote the article on RightWingWatch, to help fill in the gaps of my apparent historical ignorance.
Should they prove me wrong in my assumptions about the false nature of the “gay rights equals black rights” social comparison, I will gladly admit my error. Should they be unable to answer my simple questions, I hope they would have the candor to admit their error.
Looking at the list of the 50 most powerful gay Americans (according to Out.com), and using 1964 as an end date for official segregation (with the passing of the Civil Rights Act), would someone please be kind enough to let me know who the pre-1964 African American equivalents were for the following gay leaders:
Suze Orman, the national TV host and respected financial guru. (No one comes to mind? Really?)
Anderson Cooper, one of the most familiar faces on CNN, and Rachel Maddow, of MSNBC fame. (What? No similarly famous, national black newscasters prior to 1964?)
Annise Parker, mayor of Houston. (So, there were no black mayors of major American cities prior to 1964?)
David Geffen, one of the most powerful media moguls. (Surely you have a list of black Americans during the days of segregation who carried the clout that Geffen carried, right?)
Tim Cook, CEO of Apple. (How about just one black CEO of any of the Fortune 500 companies in America before 1964, let alone the CEO of the 6th-ranked company on the most recent list?)
Well, these are just a few to get us started, so it should be pretty easy to provide me with answers, right? After all, if it’s idiotic to say that we cannot fairly compare the social situation of gays in America today to the social situation of African Americans in the days of segregation (again, without even mentioning their prior, horrific mistreatment in our nation as slaves), then it should be relatively easy to answer my questions. Evan and Kyle, I’m all ears!
That being said, I stand with Evan and Kyle in denouncing any acts of violence or hatred against any person who identifies as LGBT, and one gay kid bullied by his peers at school is one too many.
So, I’m not minimizing the poor treatment experienced by many gays and lesbians in America to this day. I’m simply saying that it is grossly inaccurate to compare the current “gay rights” movement with the black Civil Rights movement of the past, not to mention downright insulting to African Americans.
The Black civil rights movement and the Gay civil rights movements are the same. They are both frauds led and financed by hard core Leftist and Communists.
Blacks in the 60s marched in their good clothes, were orderly, and sang Christian songs.
Gays wear skimpy outfits or are nude, carry signs with filthy messages about their sexual habits, and they march against people not wanting to know about their sex life.
There is a difference between discrimination for how you are born vs. the way you behave.
Don’t care. Blacks vote overwhelmingly for politicians in lock step with homosexual activists.
The difference is more than discrimination. Being discriminated against means that you are treated unfairly by someone who has something against you.
Black Americans were not merely treated unfairly. They were severely violated. There is no comparison.
A gay person does not put his or her life at risk by sitting in the wrong seat, drinking from the wrong fountain, or walking down the wrong street at the wrong time of day.
One Matthew Sheppard does not equal countless dead black men and women.
And this is not discriminatory: many people disapproved, and I disapprove, a heterosexual who advertises a preference for immoral or unnatural sex practices (e.g. man-woman promiscuity, man-woman adultery, man-woman sadism, man-woman sodomy) as much as I disapprove a homosexual who does the same.
Historically, many or most people who had occasional or persisting same-sex feelings, got married, engaged in procreative sexual union with their spouses, and had kids the same as everybody else. They resisted their homosexual attractions just like the rest of us resist our adulterous attractions.
They didn't vamp and stamp and camp in public. And they sure didn't insist that everybody else shower them with rose-petals, solemnize their quirks, and subsidize their sterile modus vivendi.
RE: homosexuals were and are disapproved for what they do.
Not defending the queers... but their counter-argument is and has always been -— they do what they do because of what they are.
Remember the gay adage “We were born this way”.
Every person born has innate tendencies which must be re-trained, refined, or resisted. A convincing case could be made, for instance, that most males are wired for random promiscuity. Lifelong exclusive faithful monogamy is not "what comes naturally." But it's what a sound moral code requires.
A person who claims they actually cannot control how they sexually act out, shouldn't be allowed out in public without a keeper.
Mrs don-o, you’re correct. It is about actions versus attributes.
To the argument that some homosexuals are born that way, I would say it is possible. It could be a neurological disorder. In which case, they should seek a cure from science or healing from God. Born that way or not, engaging in perversion is sinful.
We are all born sinners and are susceptible to temptation. That doesn’t make engaging in sin natural and acceptable. We must resist the temptation to sin every day.
It’s time to advocate for straight, honest, hard-working, patriotic Americans’ rights.
They were going to claim they were victims of bigotry and discrimination. I just can't believe Black civil rights leaders have allowed them to get away with it.
The homosexuals stole the word gay to use in making their perversion seem okay dokay and now they want to steal the Civil Rights Movement wear as a clock of respectability
‘this is “The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle.”
Sorry....but there are a great many more on the horizon.’
Exactly. The leftists/marxists/socialists know that “civil rights” is a cash cow for them as well as way to whip up voters ignorant of true history into a frenzy who will increase the power of the government into every area of our lives.
“A person who claims they actually cannot control how they sexually act out, shouldn’t be allowed out in public without a keeper.”
Be careful, Mrs. Don-o. That statement would probably be considered “hate speech”. I figure it’s only a matter of time before the pedophiles and zoophiles jump on this “I can’t control myself! I need civil rights!” bus.
Just curious, did they define what they thought the “moral argument” that they lost was?
And look who their sponsors are: (Link) Disney, Mattell, Wells Fargo Bank, AT&T, IBM, GoldmanSachs, the NBA!
So be a good sport!
This is all a cover, a venue, a curtain-raiser for the pedos.
bump
They were talking about “morality”. People/voters felt homosexuality was immoral so they decided civil rights or “fairness” would be a better approach. Guess they were right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.